Seeing a few comments suggesting peer review should be abandoned as it is takes too long or still misses things. It is not perfect BUT I can’t think of a single example where my work was not improved after peer review. We need it more than ever.

Also, most journals have a fast track option. So if your work is truly important & urgently needed, it may only take a few days or week for feedback. The journal editors I know care deeply about improving healthcare through high quality research. That’s why they do their job.

How we improve the peer review process is a worthy debate. How do we engage and harness methodologists & health professionals in the review process? Again journal editors I know are always looking at this & other improvements, including engaging patients as reviewers

One area we need to improve is feedback of reviews to junior & early career researchers. Peer review can feel quite brutal and personal; this is hard at any time but especially when embarking on a research career. Knowing ‘this is just part of the process’ is not reassuring.